Projecting the Cactus/Grapefruit League Standings, Part 2: Let’s Divisionate!
On Monday, we projected what the Cactus/Grapefruit standings could look like given baseball’s radical proposal to base the 2020 season in team’s Arizona and Florida spring training complexes.
In my first piece, I went with division-less leagues, since I am the ZiPS Dictator — faber est suae quisque fortunae. With travel distances relatively limited compared to a normal season and many of the traditional divisional rivalries gone topsy-turvy, I felt there wasn’t any real need to have divisions. No divisions doesn’t mean that fewer teams make the playoffs, after all.
But being the ZiPS Dictator doesn’t make one the MLB Dictator, and there’s a very good chance that any Arizona/Florida league will have makeshift divisions. First, let’s re-project our temporary leagues using the divisions that Bob Nightengale laid out in his piece initially reporting the paln. For the number of games, I’m going with the proposed 108, consisting of 12 games against each team’s division rivals and six games against each of the non-division teams. We’ll start with the Florida teams:
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York Yankees | 67 | 41 | — | .620 | 88.9% | 5.3% | 94.2% | 15.6% |
| Philadelphia Phillies | 56 | 52 | 11 | .519 | 9.7% | 21.3% | 31.1% | 2.4% |
| Toronto Blue Jays | 48 | 60 | 19 | .444 | 0.8% | 2.7% | 3.4% | 0.2% |
| Pittsburgh Pirates | 48 | 60 | 19 | .444 | 0.5% | 1.9% | 2.4% | 0.1% |
| Detroit Tigers | 41 | 67 | 26 | .380 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
The Yankees get nearly as easy a division as can reasonably be expected, with only the Philadelphia Phillies being good enough to pose a significant danger. The Pirates and Tigers are obviously rebuilding, the Blue Jays have a number of serious holes, and any team challenging the Yankees would need some assistance from non-division teams to shut down the Bombers. In this divisional format, the Yankees might even take longer to bring back some of their more severely injured players such as Aaron Judge and Aaron Hicks. Why rush them? Now let’s look south:
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlanta Braves | 61 | 47 | — | .565 | 36.9% | 27.7% | 64.6% | 7.1% |
| Tampa Bay Rays | 61 | 47 | — | .565 | 32.9% | 27.9% | 60.8% | 6.4% |
| Minnesota Twins | 60 | 48 | 1 | .556 | 25.5% | 27.4% | 52.9% | 5.1% |
| Boston Red Sox | 53 | 55 | 8 | .491 | 4.6% | 10.9% | 15.5% | 1.1% |
| Baltimore Orioles | 37 | 71 | 24 | .343 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
This might be the most exciting division of the sixth. You have two 2019 division winners in the Braves and Twins and a 96-win team that didn’t suffer any serious losses over the offseason in the Rays. And none of them are so good that they immediately knock the Red Sox into the no-hope category. The Orioles remain a long-shot, but in truth, they’re a long-shot in any division that isn’t in Triple-A. We’ll wrap up Florida with the East Division:
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Houston Astros | 62 | 46 | — | .574 | 47.1% | 22.0% | 69.1% | 8.1% |
| Washington Nationals | 60 | 48 | 2 | .556 | 34.0% | 24.1% | 58.1% | 6.1% |
| New York Mets | 56 | 52 | 6 | .519 | 11.1% | 15.9% | 26.9% | 2.2% |
| St. Louis Cardinals | 54 | 54 | 8 | .500 | 7.5% | 12.0% | 19.5% | 1.5% |
| Miami Marlins | 46 | 62 | 16 | .426 | 0.3% | 1.0% | 1.4% | 0.1% |
It would be a lot of fun to match up a World Series rematch scenario coming off the disclosure of Houston’s trashcananigans. Gerrit Cole is gone, but you’d get some direct World Series pitching matchups with Justin Verlander and Zack Greinke still on the Astros. The Cardinals would be in a position to get some 2019 postseason revenge of their own against the Nationals, and the Mets, even having lost Noah Syndergaard, are still legitimate second-tier contenders. Maybe the Marlins will have home-state advantage? OK, maybe a reach. Now let’s look to Arizona, starting with the Northeast Division:
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oakland Athletics | 59 | 49 | — | .546 | 45.7% | 16.9% | 62.6% | 5.7% |
| Chicago Cubs | 57 | 51 | 2 | .528 | 29.8% | 18.1% | 47.9% | 3.8% |
| Arizona Diamondbacks | 56 | 52 | 3 | .519 | 20.6% | 16.0% | 36.6% | 2.7% |
| Colorado Rockies | 49 | 59 | 10 | .454 | 2.5% | 3.4% | 5.9% | 0.3% |
| San Francisco Giants | 47 | 61 | 12 | .435 | 1.4% | 2.3% | 3.7% | 0.2% |
This is one of the more familiar looking divisions, with three-fifths of the NL West left intact. I doubt any of those teams are going to object too strenuously to being relieved of having to compete directly with the Dodgers and Mookie Betts in 2020. The top three projected teams in the division were all serious Wild Card contenders — only Oakland succeeded in 2019 — and this division gives them a better chance at a divisional title than they would have otherwise. Now we’ll examine the West:
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles Dodgers | 67 | 41 | — | .620 | 77.5% | 15.8% | 93.3% | 13.3% |
| Cleveland Indians | 58 | 50 | 9 | .537 | 11.8% | 36.7% | 48.5% | 3.2% |
| Cincinnati Reds | 54 | 54 | 13 | .500 | 4.3% | 21.3% | 25.6% | 1.4% |
| Los Angeles Angels | 54 | 54 | 13 | .500 | 3.6% | 19.5% | 23.2% | 1.2% |
| Chicago White Sox | 53 | 55 | 14 | .491 | 2.7% | 15.5% | 18.2% | 0.9% |
Playing in the West Division is a rather unfortunate development for second-tier contenders. The Indians and Reds both had good divisional chances in a normal 2020 and the Angels and White Sox were interesting third-tier contenders. Now, they’re all thrown into a division with the Dodgers and ZiPS is not optimistic about their chances. 108 games instead of 162 does help with this, however. This division is especially tough for the White Sox, who would now project to be the worst team in the division when they previously hoped to feast on the also-ran Royals and Tigers. Finally, to the Northwest Division we go:
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| San Diego Padres | 59 | 49 | — | .546 | 56.4% | 11.7% | 68.1% | 6.3% |
| Milwaukee Brewers | 57 | 51 | 2 | .528 | 34.0% | 14.8% | 48.8% | 3.9% |
| Texas Rangers | 51 | 57 | 8 | .472 | 7.2% | 5.7% | 13.0% | 0.8% |
| Kansas City Royals | 47 | 61 | 12 | .435 | 2.1% | 2.0% | 4.1% | 0.2% |
| Seattle Mariners | 42 | 66 | 17 | .389 | 0.3% | 0.2% | 0.5% | 0.0% |
If someone had talked seriously about the Padres-Brewers divisional race three months ago, I probably would have looked at them askance. Both these teams get a significant boost in a weak division, which might be especially important for the Padres, who are relieved of facing the Dodgers like the rest of their NL West brethren. Kansas City and Seattle actually see better divisional odds than in their normal divisions, but it’s a marginal gain.
I do kind of miss being the dictator. So let me put my baseball authoritarian hat back and do my own preferred leagues. Rather than take into account any of the Florida travel logistics, I tried instead to group teams based solely on historical baseball and for geographic reasons related to their home franchise cities.
For these divisions, I tried to pair as many of the traditional rivals together as possible, while also deferring to certain geographic rivalries. It’s impossible to make every team/fanbase happy since I need exactly six divisions of exactly five teams, but I tried my best!
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York Yankees | 66 | 42 | — | .611 | 84.5% | 7.4% | 91.9% | 15.0% |
| New York Mets | 57 | 51 | 9 | .528 | 10.1% | 21.1% | 31.2% | 2.5% |
| Boston Red Sox | 54 | 54 | 12 | .500 | 4.8% | 12.4% | 17.2% | 1.2% |
| Toronto Blue Jays | 48 | 60 | 18 | .444 | 0.6% | 2.2% | 2.8% | 0.2% |
| Detroit Tigers | 41 | 67 | 25 | .380 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
The new Grapefruit League East preserves the Yankees-Red Sox matchups while also adding a bunch of Yankees-Mets showdowns. And while Baltimore is an actual AL East team, I went with the Tigers here to match up with the Blue Jays, a classic old-school AL East rivalry for those of you who grew up in the 1980s as I did. The Yankees still project to handily win this division, but as the best projected team in baseball, they look quite solid in most matchups. As for the next division…
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlanta Braves | 62 | 46 | — | .574 | 36.0% | 29.9% | 65.9% | 7.3% |
| Tampa Bay Rays | 61 | 47 | 1 | .565 | 32.2% | 29.8% | 62.0% | 6.6% |
| Washington Nationals | 61 | 47 | 1 | .565 | 31.5% | 30.0% | 61.5% | 6.5% |
| Miami Marlins | 47 | 61 | 15 | .435 | 0.3% | 1.3% | 1.7% | 0.1% |
| Baltimore Orioles | 37 | 71 | 25 | .343 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
The Orioles get to match up against the Nationals in this divisional configuration, most of those games being future losses. The rest of the southeastern teams fit neatly here as they did in the other Grapefruit League South. Like that division, this looks like a fun three-way race between three elite 2019 teams. On to the Central:
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Houston Astros | 62 | 46 | — | .574 | 51.3% | 18.3% | 69.6% | 8.5% |
| Minnesota Twins | 59 | 49 | 3 | .546 | 29.1% | 21.9% | 51.0% | 5.2% |
| Philadelphia Phillies | 55 | 53 | 7 | .509 | 10.6% | 13.4% | 24.0% | 2.0% |
| St. Louis Cardinals | 54 | 54 | 8 | .500 | 8.5% | 11.2% | 19.7% | 1.6% |
| Pittsburgh Pirates | 46 | 62 | 16 | .426 | 0.5% | 1.0% | 1.4% | 0.1% |
The Twins are kind of the orphaned team here thanks to their interesting normal-division rivals, Cleveland and Chicago, playing in Arizona. Most of the old AL West, Minnesota’s previous division, are already playing in the Cactus League. This division gives half of 2019’s divisions winners (Twins, Astros, Cardinals) and the Phillies at least have some upside given the top-end talent on the roster. You also get to keep the Philadelphia-Pittsburgh cross-state rivalry. Now on to Arizona:
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleveland Indians | 58 | 50 | — | .537 | 34.1% | 18.0% | 52.1% | 4.6% |
| Chicago Cubs | 57 | 51 | 1 | .528 | 23.4% | 16.7% | 40.1% | 3.2% |
| Milwaukee Brewers | 55 | 53 | 3 | .509 | 17.7% | 15.0% | 32.7% | 2.5% |
| Cincinnati Reds | 55 | 53 | 3 | .509 | 14.8% | 13.7% | 28.5% | 2.1% |
| Chicago White Sox | 53 | 55 | 5 | .491 | 10.0% | 10.5% | 20.5% | 1.4% |
The Cactus League Midwest is a rather tidy division, essentially housing all of the AL Central/NL Central stragglers in one slate. You get both Chicago teams and both Ohio teams, and the results are probably my favorite of these six divisions. In 108 games, all five teams project to have at least a 10% chance of emerging Midwest champions, a level of competitiveness that ZiPS has never projected for a real-life division, as far as I can tell. Next, we’ll turn our attention to the California teams:
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles Dodgers | 67 | 41 | — | .620 | 74.3% | 19.0% | 93.3% | 13.5% |
| Oakland Athletics | 58 | 50 | 9 | .537 | 12.0% | 38.7% | 50.7% | 3.5% |
| San Diego Padres | 58 | 50 | 9 | .537 | 10.2% | 36.3% | 46.5% | 3.1% |
| Los Angeles Angels | 54 | 54 | 13 | .500 | 3.4% | 19.5% | 22.9% | 1.3% |
| San Francisco Giants | 46 | 62 | 21 | .426 | 0.1% | 1.8% | 1.9% | 0.1% |
The California teams also fit neatly together, though with the Dodgers being projected as the best team in baseball, the race doesn’t look as exciting as they do in the Midwest Division. The Padres remain competitive — ZiPS is higher on them than any other projection system that I am aware of. This division keeps both the L.A. rivalries, Dodgers/Giants, and A’s/Giants, so there’s a lot o history here. And finally, to wrap up Arizona play, we have the West:
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona Diamondbacks | 57 | 51 | — | .528 | 61.1% | 3.0% | 64.1% | 5.2% |
| Texas Rangers | 51 | 57 | 6 | .472 | 18.3% | 3.6% | 21.9% | 1.4% |
| Colorado Rockies | 50 | 58 | 7 | .463 | 12.7% | 2.6% | 15.2% | 0.9% |
| Kansas City Royals | 48 | 60 | 9 | .444 | 6.8% | 1.5% | 8.2% | 0.5% |
| Seattle Mariners | 43 | 65 | 14 | .398 | 1.2% | 0.2% | 1.3% | 0.1% |
Unfortunately, this division can best be classified as…The Others. The teams here either don’t have an extensive rivalry history, or at least don’t have one that’s available (no Royals/Cardinals or Astros/Rangers games are possible). This is a problem that MLB has had in the past when assigning teams geographic rivalries for interleague play. After MLB ran out of New York, Chicago, and L.A. rivalries, there were a few stragglers. So you ended up with the Mariners having as their bitter rivals, the Padres because… of Eddie Vedder? The Rockies, Diamondbacks, and Rangers, along with the Astros, were given a rotating split rivalry.
But what this division lacks in rivalries, it makes up for in giving borderline candidates a better shot at the playoffs. Arizona projects as the division’s best team, but this is the best chance for any of the other four teams to win a division in 2020.
For the final divisional mix, let’s take a page from the English football league system. For each league, I split the teams into three divisions, assembled by their roster strengths, as projected by ZiPS. Obviously, MLB would never do this in a million years — and would probably do the whole relegation thing once in a billion years — but it’s fun to imagine if, in the lieu of traditional playoffs, we just had the best teams beating up on each other all season.
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York Yankees | 64 | 44 | — | .593 | 43.1% | 34.0% | 77.0% | 11.2% |
| Houston Astros | 60 | 48 | 4 | .556 | 18.5% | 34.6% | 53.1% | 5.9% |
| Atlanta Braves | 59 | 49 | 5 | .546 | 14.2% | 31.6% | 45.7% | 4.8% |
| Tampa Bay Rays | 59 | 49 | 5 | .546 | 12.3% | 29.5% | 41.8% | 4.3% |
| Washington Nationals | 59 | 49 | 5 | .546 | 12.0% | 29.2% | 41.2% | 4.2% |
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minnesota Twins | 59 | 49 | — | .546 | 42.2% | 10.5% | 52.7% | 6.7% |
| New York Mets | 56 | 52 | 3 | .519 | 18.9% | 8.9% | 27.8% | 3.1% |
| Philadelphia Phillies | 55 | 53 | 4 | .509 | 16.5% | 8.2% | 24.7% | 2.7% |
| St. Louis Cardinals | 54 | 54 | 5 | .500 | 13.1% | 7.2% | 20.3% | 2.1% |
| Boston Red Sox | 53 | 55 | 6 | .491 | 9.3% | 5.4% | 14.7% | 1.5% |
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Toronto Blue Jays | 50 | 58 | — | .463 | 35.6% | 0.3% | 35.9% | 2.5% |
| Pittsburgh Pirates | 50 | 58 | — | .463 | 28.9% | 0.3% | 29.2% | 2.0% |
| Miami Marlins | 49 | 59 | 1 | .454 | 29.0% | 0.3% | 29.3% | 2.0% |
| Detroit Tigers | 43 | 65 | 7 | .398 | 5.1% | 0.0% | 5.2% | 0.3% |
| Baltimore Orioles | 39 | 69 | 11 | .361 | 1.4% | 0.0% | 1.4% | 0.1% |
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles Dodgers | 66 | 42 | — | .611 | 67.4% | 23.3% | 90.6% | 13.9% |
| Oakland Athletics | 58 | 50 | 8 | .537 | 9.8% | 33.8% | 43.7% | 3.4% |
| Cleveland Indians | 57 | 51 | 9 | .528 | 9.0% | 32.6% | 41.5% | 3.2% |
| San Diego Padres | 57 | 51 | 9 | .528 | 8.3% | 31.2% | 39.5% | 3.0% |
| Chicago Cubs | 56 | 52 | 10 | .519 | 5.5% | 24.6% | 30.1% | 2.1% |
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Milwaukee Brewers | 56 | 52 | — | .519 | 24.5% | 11.2% | 35.7% | 3.4% |
| Arizona Diamondbacks | 55 | 53 | 1 | .509 | 21.9% | 10.8% | 32.7% | 3.0% |
| Cincinnati Reds | 55 | 53 | 1 | .509 | 20.7% | 10.5% | 31.3% | 2.9% |
| Los Angeles Angels | 55 | 53 | 1 | .509 | 18.7% | 9.9% | 28.6% | 2.6% |
| Chicago White Sox | 54 | 54 | 2 | .500 | 14.2% | 8.5% | 22.6% | 2.0% |
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | Div% | WC% | Playoff% | WS Win% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas Rangers | 52 | 56 | — | .481 | 36.2% | 1.1% | 37.3% | 2.7% |
| Colorado Rockies | 50 | 58 | 2 | .463 | 26.3% | 1.0% | 27.3% | 1.9% |
| San Francisco Giants | 49 | 59 | 3 | .454 | 18.7% | 0.8% | 19.5% | 1.3% |
| Kansas City Royals | 48 | 60 | 4 | .444 | 15.3% | 0.7% | 15.9% | 1.0% |
| Seattle Mariners | 43 | 65 | 9 | .398 | 3.5% | 0.1% | 3.6% | 0.2% |
Nothing too surprising here, but one can’t deny how exciting these division would be! 28 of the 30 teams project to have at least a 5% chance of winning their divisions. (It is a bit sad that the Orioles still only project to have a 1.4% chance of winning a division in which the best team is the Pirates or Blue Jays.)
After the initial piece, I was asked by a Jays fan on Twitter if I could project the Jays to make the playoffs. Mission accomplished!
Dan Szymborski is a senior writer for FanGraphs and the developer of the ZiPS projection system. He was a writer for ESPN.com from 2010-2018, a regular guest on a number of radio shows and podcasts, and a voting BBWAA member. He also maintains a terrible Twitter account at @DSzymborski.
I know I’ve been out of touch at home for over a month, but how did I miss Ohio annexing Milwaukee?! (The Cactus league Midwest has the two Chicago teams and all three Ohio teams.)
It was late, I was on allergy medicine, and quarantine is slowly destroying the drying husks that make up what’s left of my brain!
Welcome to Ohio 3.
I might take the under on the Orioles in that division
This is great! Thanks!
also that can’t be right the Rockies aren’t projected for 94 wins
Next article: Create a division where the Rockies will win exactly 94 games. No more. No less.
The first half of Dan’s article is what I would have expected. Funny quips, good analysis, excellent writing.
The second half is showing what Dan’s isolation has done to him. Marching around the house in full military uniform, pretending his bobbleheads are his troops, and ordering subordinates hung for minor infractions. Dan needs a hug, and really badly.
Maybe I’ll just send delivery to his basement lair instead? How many ways would you like your Cincinnati Chili?
To be safe, I’m socially distancing from Cincinnati chili.
It will be interesting to see what plan they ultimately go with and how that would effect the divisions. Safety and logistics are going to be the two primary drivers of any plan so I think we need to start thinking of a plan that is considered the safest and easiest to execute. In my opinion, a plan that involves Florida would need to be heavily modified and would require consolidation/sharing of stadiums as the stadiums in Florida are too spread out. If that were the case, several teams would be playing in stadiums that weren’t their true home spring training stadium. When considering there will be no fans at the games either, playing at your ‘home’ stadium doesn’t seem all that important. If done this way, this would significantly cut down on the amount of travel and quarantine zones required. So, here’s my hot take.
Put the AL (less one team) in Florida: Pick the 8 stadiums closest to Tampa and teams can either share a home stadium or just play in any random stadium each game. There would be one more stadium than needed. This could be The Trop and could be used as an alternate site for weather concerns, to play double headers and give a rotating off-day for field maintenance on the other fields. All teams would be quarantined in Tampa requiring only one quarantine site in FL. If so, all stadiums will be within 1 hr 10 minutes of the quarantine zone and travel will be greatly reduced. A plan in which teams need to travel 2-4 hours (4-8 hours round trip) via bus for most away games is not feasible.
Put the NL (plus one AL team) in Arizona: Similar to above, pick the 9 stadiums closest to Phoenix and set up your central quarantine hub there. Use Chase Field as I suggested The Trop and you’re golden. All stadiums are within 30 minutes of the quarantine zone, travel is limited, logistics are fairly easy.
I’ve suggested the AL in FL and NL in AZ but don’t get hung up on that. Essentially what I think really needs to happen is either everyone is in AZ or half the teams are in each state in a way that requires the least possible travel and least amount of quarantine zones. What teams are in what divisions is just a tiny detail that can easily be worked out once we know which stadiums will be used.
“playing at your ‘home’ stadium doesn’t seem all that important”
Given that we don’t know i̶f̶ when a player will test positive, who would then have to be quarantined (not just the player themselves), and who would replace them (if even possible), playing within driving distance of your teams’ training centers IS important.
That’s a fair point but easily solvable as each team can share a home stadium with another team and everything else still works.
And *all* the equipment, training staff, replacement coaches and minor league players they might need? While multiple teams attempt to share practice fields? The only thing this makes easier is the NL not playing with a DH.
Dump “preserve the leagues”/”F the DH”‘, keep them at their own ST facilities, and _everything_ gets easier, other than NL purists being upset.
I wonder if MLB will try to address the state tax implications? Obviously going to Florida would be more advantageous from that regard. On the other hand, I’m going to guess that Arizona would be the better spot for not catching the virus. Hard to say who comes out better.
Median actuarial value of a virus mortality is 60k, if you want a starting point to think about this. It’s grim, but it’s a start. Calculate the tax savings, then figure out the break even of how many deaths they should be “comfortable with.”
Florida would also be more advantageous to not dying in the heat, although it might not feel like it thanks to the humidity.
I created Fan divisions with the idea that, especially in AZ, an extra 30 – 50 minutes of travel is not a big deal and had your divisions except I put Philadelphia (with NYY, NYM, BOS and TOR) in my Northeast league and Detroit in my Central league (with HOU, STL, MIN and PIT). This is the one year where you can put the Yankees in the same division as the Mets. The Cubs and White Sox in the same division, the Reds and the Indians in the same division and several other regional rivals. Why not do it?
Because if teams that share a market compete directly with each other, they split the available fanbase, and the not-currently-successful team loses relative position in the local market, leading to lower future revenue. If they don’t, allowing people to be fans of both teams means an increase in interest and viewership for both teams over if they directly competed.
“But being the ZiPS Dictator doesn’t make one the MLB Dictator”
Are you absolutely sure Dan? I feel like we should check just to be sure. Because it would be much better if you were.
Grapefruit League Two is quite a sight to behold. It is quite possible that all teams, except the Blue Jays, might win more games in this scenario than they would have in a 162 game regular season.
You’re right of course that MLB will never use a premier/league one/league two system. but it’s still fun to think about because almost every team would be in contention until close the end of the regular season. The way to make it work is to give 3 playoff spots to premier league teams with the top 2 getting byes, 2 playoff spots to the league one teams who get matched against each other in round one, and 1 spot to the league two teams and that team plays the 3rd place team from the premier league. First round could be best of 3, second round best of 5, third round best of 7, and then there is a FL vs. AZ world series.
I’m a fan of a league two team and still would go for this–despite the single playoff spot, most (all?) league two teams still see their playoff odds increase. With the added playoff spots, teams in the other leagues should see increased odds or at least not experience a big decrease in odds.
Would you be willing to release Zips player projections for this year with the normal park factors removed?